Have I missed a previous version of this report? The headline is controversial (or at least it is because some people seem to get really het up about pointedly describing a poor Murray performance in a single damning word) but the rest of the article looks fair enough to me. Was an earlier edit much harsher? If not, to all the moaners - grow up.

Yes the complaints were based on the original short report + headline. As I said in my later post the actual report in full was fair enough but the headline is still at my fault in my view. I note how you always rush to defend boogers Joe though he seems perfectly capable of defending himself. I don't consider those of us who complain about such a dismal headline are the ones who need to grow up.

I think some people are not aware that every writer is given the freedom to describe how the match was from their perspective. If one writer calls it dreadful, it's not this website officially calling it dreadful as well.

Fair enough Mark but this is a news report and is the first thing a visitor to MW reads. I have to say before I joined MW I assumed these match reports were 'official' in some sense given they are written by a member of the news team and their frequent negativity put me off joining MW for a long time. But on the same count, we are free to criticise the reports from our own perspective no?

Fair enough Mark but this is a news report and is the first thing a visitor to MW reads. I have to say before I joined MW I assumed these match reports were 'official' in some sense given they are written by a member of the news team and their frequent negativity put me off joining MW for a long time. But on the same count, we are free to criticise the reports from our own perspective no?

I do understand that being on the front page it can give that impression. And they are official, it just doesn't represent the opinion of MurraysWorld as a whole. In the same way you wouldn't assume a newspaper has taken a specific view on something just because a columnist has.

Perhaps the front page needs a health warning then! Actually a front page headline does usually reflect a newspaper's position cf It was the Sun wot won it.

But yes unbelievable - it is true that just because Andy has won a GS doesn't mean the roller coaster has finished. We just need to remember that the highs have been that much higher this year and I wouldn't call today's low one of the all time lows by a long chalk, even if it was frustrating.

My only criticism of Andy today was that he could have been a little more magnanimous to his opponent when shaking hands at the net.

I've noted before that Andy isn't a good loser at the point of the hand shake even though he's usually more magnanimous later in reflecting on the match. I agree it's disappointing but even I with my supposedly 'rose tinted specs' don't think he's perfect

It wasn't a dreadful performance because the match was pretty close especially the first two sets. In fact, Andy was the dominating player in those two sets until he lost the match point and the TB thereafter. So the match report headline is quite inaccurate.

Obviously not too many people are going to be reading materials like this one, when the headline doesn’t do justice to an otherwise very close match. And a headline is the first thing that attracts readers. But it’s a wind up nonetheless. Boogers wants to be in the news along with Andy I suppose.